Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Could mainstream christianity ever make peace with gay people?
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 256 of 263 (462791)
04-09-2008 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by Rrhain
04-09-2008 12:36 PM


iano writes:
That my linguistic judgement arrives at a different conclusion than your linguistic judgement doesn't alter the fact that linguistic judgement is the category of judgement operating in both cases
Rrhain writes:
Irrelevant. You cannot arrive at a linguistic determination over words that do not exist.
Don Quixote appears nowhere in Shakespeare. Therefore, one cannot come to any linguistic determination regarding Don Quixote by examining the works of Shakespeare.
Perhaps you could explain this then...
Rrhain earlier writes:
But when the Bible does talk about mechanics, it talks about oral sex and declares it wonderful:
Sol 2:3: As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Sol 4:16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
And then there's this passage which is a bit difficult to consider:
Sol 5:4: My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.
I'm pretty sure they don't mean fisting, but clearly there is some form of masturbatory action going on.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 12:36 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 11:22 PM iano has replied

  
teen4christ
Member (Idle past 5799 days)
Posts: 238
Joined: 01-15-2008


Message 257 of 263 (462792)
04-09-2008 1:19 PM


Um, Rrhain and Iano, how long are you guys going to keep this "is too is not" thing going?
As a suggestion, iano, since you're the one that is claiming the positive in this situation, could you perhaps offer a specific example from the bible to break this cycle that you guys are stuck in?

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by iano, posted 04-09-2008 1:33 PM teen4christ has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 258 of 263 (462796)
04-09-2008 1:33 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by teen4christ
04-09-2008 1:19 PM


Um, Rrhain and Iano, how long are you guys going to keep this "is too is not" thing going?
It's just a bit of cat 'n mouse fun T4C. Don't take it too seriously.
As a suggestion, iano, since you're the one that is claiming the positive in this situation, could you perhaps offer a specific example from the bible to break this cycle that you guys are stuck in?
You must be kidding! The fun is trying to prevent Rrhain from misdirecting away from the dodgy basis of his objection. What you're suggesting would be flinging the doors wide open!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by teen4christ, posted 04-09-2008 1:19 PM teen4christ has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 11:28 PM iano has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 259 of 263 (462850)
04-09-2008 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by iano
04-09-2008 1:17 PM


iano responds to me:
quote:
Perhaps you could explain this then...
Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
Are you trying to say that oral and manual sex only happen between heterosexuals?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by iano, posted 04-09-2008 1:17 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by iano, posted 04-10-2008 5:49 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 260 of 263 (462852)
04-09-2008 11:28 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by iano
04-09-2008 1:33 PM


iano responds to teen4christ:
quote:
quote:
As a suggestion, iano, since you're the one that is claiming the positive in this situation, could you perhaps offer a specific example from the bible to break this cycle that you guys are stuck in?
You must be kidding! The fun is trying to prevent Rrhain from misdirecting away from the dodgy basis of his objection.
Read: I can't actually defend my point, so I will continue to shift the burden of proof and hope nobody notices.
We don't buy it, iano. You're the one making the claim, therefore it is your burden of proof. I have quoted the text. It is now your job to show where I have made any errors.
"Because I say so," is not sufficient.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by iano, posted 04-09-2008 1:33 PM iano has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 261 of 263 (462869)
04-10-2008 5:49 AM
Reply to: Message 259 by Rrhain
04-09-2008 11:22 PM


Rrhain writes:
Are you trying to say that oral and manual sex only happen between heterosexuals?
Nope. My point was actually this..
You say one cannot arrive at linguistic determinations over words that do not exist in a text and gave an example.
Rrhain writes:
Irrelevant. You cannot arrive at a linguistic determination over words that do not exist.
Don Quixote appears nowhere in Shakespeare. Therefore, one cannot come to any linguistic determination regarding Don Quixote by examining the works of Shakespeare.
...yet you appear to indeed be able to arrive at linguistic determinations over words that do not exist in the text. And gave an example.
Rrhain writes:
But when the Bible does talk about mechanics, it talks about oral sex and declares it wonderful:
Sol 2:3: As the apple tree among the trees of the wood, so is my beloved among the sons. I sat down under his shadow with great delight, and his fruit was sweet to my taste.
Sol 4:16: Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits.
I was asking whether you could explain the apparent contradiction to me.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.
Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Rrhain, posted 04-09-2008 11:22 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2008 4:53 AM iano has replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 262 of 263 (463107)
04-12-2008 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by iano
04-10-2008 5:49 AM


iano responds to me:
quote:
You say one cannot arrive at linguistic determinations over words that do not exist in a text and gave an example.
I asked you very politely not to play dumb. That is nowhere close to what I have said.
Remember, I am not referring to literalism, yet you seem so stuck in it that you're taking it to the extreme as if I am saying that the only way to talk about a blue object is to use the specific word "blue." Yes, I see what you're trying to get at, but it would help if you would stop playing games and simply come out and say it:
You're trying to whine about metaphor. I don't have to say the word "blue" in order to describe an object as blue. There are languages out there that do not have a color term for "blue" (Ancient Greek, for example) and yet have no trouble referring to the color of blue objects. English doesn't have a color term for the comparative shade of light blue the way we have one for the shade of light red that we call "pink." And yet, we talk about light blue objects all the time. We simply use terms that point to what we're talking about. We refer to objects of the appropriate shade ("turquoise" and "aquamarine" and "sky") or even phrases that have simply become associated with that shade ("baby blue" and "navy blue").
But this isn't about metaphor; it isn't about finding other words to describe something. It's about there not being any words; about non-existence of even the very basic concept. When you don't see the world that way, it is trivial to understand why you don't come up with words for it but you need to understand that you don't even talk about it in other words: It simply doesn't occur to you to try.
The closest the Bible ever comes to discussing anything remotely like what we understand as "homosexuality" is the story of David and Jonathan...and it isn't exactly a condemnation. But clearly David isn't "gay" the way we think of it. It isn't that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual activity between people of the same sex. It's that the people who wrote the Bible didn't think of human sexuality the way we do. It doesn't talk about gay people but rather about ritualistic practices.
Therefore, for you to impose your opinions upon text that doesn't even understand what you're talking about is the very judgement you are told not to engage in.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by iano, posted 04-10-2008 5:49 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by iano, posted 04-12-2008 5:18 PM Rrhain has not replied

  
iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 263 of 263 (463167)
04-12-2008 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by Rrhain
04-12-2008 4:53 AM


Rrhain writes:
But this isn't about metaphor; it isn't about finding other words to describe something. It's about there not being any words; about non-existence of even the very basic concept. When you don't see the world that way, it is trivial to understand why you don't come up with words for it but you need to understand that you don't even talk about it in other words: It simply doesn't occur to you to try.
The activity under consideration is homosex and no other. I'll assume you accept that the activity (and a concept of what constituted that activity) existed.
Which means the activity is open to potential metaphorical description. In deciding if and how it is might be metaphorically decribed we are returned to the application of linguistic judgement. Are we not?
-
The closest the Bible ever comes to discussing anything remotely like what we understand as "homosexuality" is the story of David and Jonathan...and it isn't exactly a condemnation. But clearly David isn't "gay" the way we think of it. It isn't that the Bible has nothing to say about sexual activity between people of the same sex. It's that the people who wrote the Bible didn't think of human sexuality the way we do
Therefore, for you to impose your opinions upon text that doesn't even understand what you're talking about is the very judgement you are told not to engage in.
Is there any conclusion above that isn't arrived at by your application of linguistic judgement? For if not I can only return you to an earlier point...
quote:
That my linguistic judgement arrives at a different conclusion than your linguistic judgement doesn't alter the fact that linguistic judgement is the category of judgement operating in both cases
quote:
Irrelevant. You cannot arrive at a linguistic determination over words that do not exist.

You have explained in this post that your use of "words" above is meant to convey the idea of "basic concepts". Unless you are posing an extra-biblical argument that there was no concept of what constituted the activity of homosex then, then we are back to the relevancy of the above point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by Rrhain, posted 04-12-2008 4:53 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024